I said in the other thread his review was sort of to be expected. I don't really have much to say since the way he shoots and his expectations out of legacy lenses are so completely different from mine that the review proves almost useless to me, despite being a legacy lens user that presumably this article is aimed at.

No its a great review if you have a wonderful set of Vivitar exceptional lenses to use on the finest 36mp sensor on the market!!

This is the best review since Ken Rockwell slammed the A7r using a lens known to not be compatible with the A7/r.

No attempt was made to be real and match the type of buyer who would be interested in this camera. They would typically have some high quality other brand lenses other than "Vivitars" to use on their Sony.

I said in the other thread his review was sort of to be expected. I don't really have much to say since the way he shoots and his expectations out of legacy lenses are so completely different from mine that the review proves almost useless to me, despite being a legacy lens user that presumably this article is aimed at.

Just wait until the A7 and R full review comes out tomorrow. They will guaranteed trash them to no end with petty annoyances that no one even thought of before because they are DSLR biased. This was just a prelude article stating the A7 or R are worthless with third party lenses. This opened the door to completely dismiss the cameras. They already dismissed the camera ergonomics in this article.

I think this review is rather fair in exposing the limitations of the focus peaking system, and it ends with "if you're mainly just having fun, like me, then there's a lot of pleasure to be had in attaching weird and wonderful lenses to these cameras". It's not bashing the camera.

But I agree that some comments are a bit off like talking of paid jobs and MF lenses. Who in his right mind would do a paid job with MF lenses on ANY body these days (with the exception of some REALLY good photographers)? This is not an A7(R) issue. According to the reviewer the cameras don't allow to use legacy lenses as expected from the reviewer. Is there any other camera that really does it that much better? Of course the reviewer lacks a bit of experience with this technology, but so do many people buying the A7(R). Not all of them come from years using a NEX camera.

The real error of the reviewer is forgetting to say that the A7(R) allows much better use of the legacy lenses than the original film cameras did. I wish he tried to focus the Hexanon F1.2 with an OVF. THEN he would have out of focus images...

I often use a Minolta XD with a 58mm F1.2 lens. I have plenty of slightly OOF images taken wide open and I can only wish I had focus peaking on that camera

By the way, I do have the Hexanon lens he mentions and many others, I do have film cameras, the A7 and have a long experience with focus peaking on a NEX5N. This review tells nothing new imho.

As a final thought though, he used pretty bad lenses. The Hexanon 57mm F1.2 (as well as the 40mm F1.8) "glow" wide open. No chance for the focus peaking to see anything more than a human eye could. But when I use my Minolta 58mm at F1.2, the focus peaking feature DOES work pretty well.

1) seems like written by complete newbie to mirrorless/NEX cameras, who just discovered how peaking works2) very poor lens selection, I would expect much better glass reviewed - not just crappy glass for few $$$ , C'Mon Barney you must have access to better glass!3) main complain seems to be re: magnif. button placement, but half of the community knows that magnified view is best assigned to centre button AEL// AF/MF4) I feel that shooting alt /legacy lenses is much more fun than portrait in this half-baked article!I have learned nothing new at all

I think this review is rather fair in exposing the limitations of the focus peaking system, and it ends with "if you're mainly just having fun, like me, then there's a lot of pleasure to be had in attaching weird and wonderful lenses to these cameras". It's not bashing the camera.

It's fair if all that is available is low-end old lenses without modern coatings. It's not fair, however, to use low-end old lenses without modern coatings to point out issues with focus peaking that are only caused by using low-end old lenses without modern coatings.

See where I'm going here?

Had he used good quality high-contrast sharp lenses he wouldn't have had "issues" with focus peaking. So I'm leaning toward biased on this one though it may not have been entirely intentional. It would have been more balanced if he had at least used one modern MF lens.

No its a great review if you have a wonderful set of Vivitar exceptional lenses to use on the finest 36mp sensor on the market!!

This is the best review since Ken Rockwell slammed the A7r using a lens known to not be compatible with the A7/r.

No attempt was made to be real and match the type of buyer who would be interested in this camera. They would typically have some high quality other brand lenses other than "Vivitars" to use on their Sony.

I think this review is rather fair in exposing the limitations of the focus peaking system, and it ends with "if you're mainly just having fun, like me, then there's a lot of pleasure to be had in attaching weird and wonderful lenses to these cameras". It's not bashing the camera.

It's fair if all that is available is low-end old lenses without modern coatings. It's not fair, however, to use low-end old lenses without modern coatings to point out issues with focus peaking that are only caused by using low-end old lenses without modern coatings.

See where I'm going here?

It's not a comprehensive review, I agree. And it's not a very professional review either, since it points out only the obvious. Still, it's a good introduction for those who know little to nothing of the topic and points out real limitations of the system.

I'm not saying it's a good review as it's actually rather superficial, but it points out that using cheap old lenses won't do you any good, which is what several people might expect from the camera. It fails to show how good results can be achieved with newer MF lenses.

Personally I can't tell this either, I just got a new MF lens (Ultron 40mm F2) but I'm waiting for the adapter.

Had he used good quality high-contrast sharp lenses he wouldn't have had "issues" with focus peaking. So I'm leaning toward biased on this one though it may not have been entirely intentional. It would have been more balanced if he had at least used one modern MF lens.

As I wrote in my comment before, my Minolta 58mm F1.2 works wonders even wide open with focus peaking, but I do agree that average to good lenses might put you in trouble in low light situations.

Maybe what should be said is: focus peaking won't magically turn a mediocre photographer into a MF master (I know cause I still unsuccessfully try to take shots of my 17 months old son with MF lenses and miserably fail most of the times )

But I agree that some comments are a bit off like talking of paid jobs and MF lenses. Who in his right mind would do a paid job with MF lenses on ANY body these days (with the exception of some REALLY good photographers)?

I would. Guess what I very successfully used 100% of the time professionally in the 1970s.

Seriously, it depends on what kind of shooting, but there are plenty of situations where one of my old manuals is a way better answer than any autofocus lens. This is even more often true when budget is an issue.

The real error of the reviewer is forgetting to say that the A7(R) allows much better use of the legacy lenses than the original film cameras did. I wish he tried to focus the Hexanon F1.2 with an OVF. THEN he would have out of focus images...

Very much agreed. I replaced the screen in my A350 to use manual lenses with it, and even that excellent 3rd-party screen with microprisims and splits isn't close to being as effective as peaking in my NEX-5/NEX-7/A7.

As a final thought though, he used pretty bad lenses. The Hexanon 57mm F1.2 (as well as the 40mm F1.8) "glow" wide open. No chance for the focus peaking to see anything more than a human eye could. But when I use my Minolta 58mm at F1.2, the focus peaking feature DOES work pretty well.

Yeah. Old 17mm ultrawides are seriously technologically challenged, and his actually does better than average, but that's somewhat pointless on an A7R. The 57mm f/1.2 looks unexpectedly bad -- certainly way worse than my Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 wide open -- but perhaps that's a problem with that Hexanon in general (I thought it might be a condition issue with his $30 copy)? Peaking in magnified view isn't useful with such poor IQ because nothing is ever sharp enough to peak. It also is easier to find lenses (old or new) up to the standard of an A7 vs. A7R.

I think it's also worth noting that the images are presented straight from the camera, without fixing the defects that are usually automatically fixed for lenses the cameras recognize. Even just fixing vignetting (which there is an app for) would significantly even the dynamic range, allowing the JPEG engine to render the whole frame with notably more lively color. A little postprocessing would show most of the IQ flaws are somewhat different from those common in modern lenses, but not consistently worse. For example, low contrast is very common for old lenses, whereas new lenses (especially autofocus ones) commonly are poorly centered and have artifacts from imprecisely-shaped (molded) aspheric surfaces.

In sum, I think Barney is a bit of a newbie when it comes to using old lenses on modern cameras... but weren't we all once? I started doing this in 2009, and I do it a lot, so of course I know more tricks. I even get to leverage tricks I learned 35-40 years ago when I did photography professionally.

Same here. Ergonomics on the A7 could be definitely improved (like allowing playback in the central button of control wheel instead of awkwardly reaching for C2) by firmware changes, but his usecase of putting only garbage lenses is, if not plainly malevolent, just strange.

As I pointed out in a comment to his post, MOST buyers of A7 with the intent to reuse legacy glass have a cupboard of BRAND legacy lenses from their film slr, e.g. Canon (FD), Nikon, Minolta, Pentax and not obscure garbage lenses. Otherwise they wouldn't bother with mirrorless and especially A7 since native lenses are very limited at present for FE.

My experience with cheaply acquired FD lenses is, that the cheapest one FD35/2.8 (20 Euros) is already great on Nex 5N but smashing in terms of sharpness wide-open on the A7 (close to FE35/2.8). See also ERP reviews which confirmed my experience in hind-sight. Another great FD lens I got for free is the FD135/2.8 with astounding sharpness wide-open. FD50/1.4 can be had for 50 Euros in wide supply. ......

Those lenses are competitive with modern lenses, of course lacking AF and OSS. E.g. FD50 is sharper at f2.0 than SEL50F18.

As conclusion, I struggle to understand what is going on here at dpreview. The A7 preview was similarily moaning about details a lot, with short notes later on in the text that they had discovered how to (simply!) solve the problem. The A7 is ugly as a brick compared to the Nex series and it has its shortcomings, but this treatment is strange - non (!) honi soit qui mal y pense.

A7r needs native lens quickly, folks are losing interest...I even tried the Sigma 70-300 with the LA-EA4 adapter and it focuses (and hunts) so much slower than the EM1 100-300 it is ridiculous...also shot to shot is not even a competition...IQ is better with EM1 100-300 due to the fact it is fast enough to get the shot when the A7R can't...

Love the idea, the innovation, and the camera, but losing interest fast...no AF lens = loser for me and many others....kudos to all you good folks that love MF...

Waiting on a UW and the 24-70 to materialise...

-- hide signature --

--Really there is a God...and He loves you..FlickR Photostream:www.flickr.com/photos/46756347@N08/Mr Ichiro Kitao, I support the call to upgrade the FZ50.I will not only buy one but two no questions asked...

That review is utterly worthless. That vivitar lens is going to look like crap on any modern digital camera. He makes no distinction between a7 and a7r, doesn't talk about which lenses work and which don't. Freaking useless. It is true that you need to zoom in to really nail focus. But I'm in a rhythm wiht it and it's pretty easy once you get used to it.

I'm no brand or format loyalist, but this review is just poorly conceived. As anybody can see if they just look at the pictures out there with legacy lenses, the A7r is an incredible camera for someone who knows what they are doing.

As for paid work, I've already done some with my Zeiss 50/2 planar. So the author is totally off base. It just depends on the job.